The presumption of innocence is among the most sacred principles in the American court system. The concept of being innocent until proven guilty means that anybody accused of a crime is assumed innocent until the allegations leveled against them are proven. It squarely places the burden of proof on the government, here the Indiana State Police, to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens that no one shall be “deprived of life, property or liberty without following the due process of law.” The 14th Amendment applies this principle to states in the U.S. All accused persons are innocent before the law until proven guilty. Sometimes it’s easy to condemn another person without establishing the facts about the allegations. This is why the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is entrenched in our constitution. There are many instances where people are charged and sentenced for mistakes or crimes they didn’t commit and many times guilty people are not found guilty of horrendous crimes they actually committed. It is the process of our judicial system, fair or not. While the investigation into someone appears good on paper, it’s not as easy to practice the concept that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. It’s really easy for law enforcement, such as the Indiana State Police and others, to rush to judge without interrogating the facts related to the case. Police often seek out evidence that a person is guilty and not even look at evidence that he his innocent. The evidence related to their innocence is not as glamorous to their case they spent months on. I encourage you to read, Their Bloody Lies & Persecution of David Camm, by a retired FBI Agent involved in the case. It’s a real eye opener! How does a police agency justify months of investigation and not find evidence that there’s something there? If the suspect involved is terminated, resigned, lost their political status, or some other adverse action occurs, the police validate themselves and the investigation they have done. They don’t seem to care they publicly ruined someone’s life without concrete evidence of a crime. They phrase, “Well where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire”. Social Media often plays a significant role in influencing public opinion with regard to an accused person or the victim. For example, the media can portray the defendant in a way that makes it nearly impossible to believe they’re innocent. No matter how guilty a person appears to be, it’s important to follow due process and establish all facts about the allegations before making a decision, however human concept is not able to do that. Mainly because of how connections, especially in a small town, influence someone and their opinion. Did TA commit this crime or crimes in the past? I don’t know! Did TA pick up girls when he was on the police department and as mayor. Probably! He’s the only democrat who can still tell the difference between an man and a woman. We will never really find out the truth, because as the first line of your post said, THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ISN'T REALLY ABOUT JUSTICE. |